Maybe I could reword that ‘principal principle’ of systems
steering as a statement of the basic evidence of order in the universe.
“Conserved change
appears to have verifiable but unexplainable complex organization behind it you
can usually observe developing and also break by pushing it to over-develop.”
Look, I know this audience is not made of fools, and not deaf
and dumb, and probably not disinterested in change, so I have to figure your inability
to connect with my approach to constructing a science of change for natural complex
systems must be that you find no door between your methods and mine. Please
respond. Our world is changing dangerously. Our common terms of explanation
still contain lots of old errors, so are leaving us out of control.
Phil
Re: 10/1
--------
Observing how the present diverges from the past should
be useful, both for becoming better able to control or capitalize on how nature
works, but also for better controlling ourselves to stop repeating past choices
that would be in error.
I'm trying to share something of my experience and
verifiable knowledge of that, that is of some importance. Some only see a
fine line between learning someone's tricks for making your own discoveries,
and repeating back the words they use to describe their own discoveries, but
there's a world of difference, of course. I don't want to hear my empty words
back, I want to hear your full words reflecting your having made some of the
same observations. Words are only meaningful if they represent shared
experience. I think science can help us compare notes on our independent
observations of the divergent processes in nature, and to really learn
something by that.
Growing rates and kinds of learning occur within
relationship networks as they multiply their organizational scale and
complexity. That applies to projects that start small at home or work, to
software, building plans or businesses, industries, societies, etc, that get
endlessly bigger in scale and incorporate changes in kind ever faster. I
observe that when a complex multiplication of relationships like that runs into
an unexpected rush of complications, it's often just before serious widespread
failures occur. It looks to me to be a signal that marks crossing a line
toward unmanageability for the system as a whole, marking an internal 'breaking
point'.
Do any of you notice that rush of complications as a
signal of self-controls becoming, overextended, unresponsive and systems about
to go "out of control", like over driving the slop in your steering
system? It's also a little like a juggler being thrown just one too many
balls to keep in the air all at once, and not dropping just the one but nearly
all of them. I think it's a general property of divergent learning systems.
Do you guys recognize any cases where organizational instability arises due to
exceeding the learning responses of the parts?
If there were such a property of instability in growth,
and if you considered cybernetics to be the science of control, a principle of
self-control to avoid pushing learning responses out of control could be called
its "principal principle", i.e. don't overshoot. That's what I
dubbed it anyway, the prudent choice to not push the learning demands of a
system beyond the responsiveness of its parts. Does that make any sense in
terms of what you observe?
Phil Henshaw
¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY
10040
tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: [hidden email] explorations: www.synapse9.com
"it's not finding what people say interesting,
but finding the interest in what they say"
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |